I would like to signal an interesting article I have found on the web:

Brian Cox is wrong: blogging your research is not a recipe for disaster - by Sarah Kendrew

I tend to agree with Sarah, but I also think some confusion might arise in comparing blogs with peer reviewed articles. So forget peer reviewing and its problems for a moment. We live in a blog here, so I ask the question: what should scientific bloggers do? For instance, should they

- communicate the last minute potentially revolutionary results
- use blogging with the purpose explaining to non specialists how scientists work and what they do
- "teach" to non-specialists the basic foundations of their discipline
- what else?

I don't know the answer; I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of blogging is.

   Cheers Paolo

Old NID
84378

Latest reads

Article teaser image
Donald Trump does not have the power to rescind either constitutional amendments or federal laws by mere executive order, no matter how strongly he might wish otherwise. No president of the United…
Article teaser image
The Biden administration recently issued a new report showing causal links between alcohol and cancer, and it's about time. The link has been long-known, but alcohol carcinogenic properties have been…
Article teaser image
In British Iron Age society, land was inherited through the female line and husbands moved to live with the wife’s community. Strong women like Margaret Thatcher resulted.That was inferred due to DNA…